Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 626 posts

Re: Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men

#521

Post by lazyasciiart »

renholder wrote: post #427
lazyasciiart wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public servants. Sweden. Buffer.

> Public servants All public servants or just those paid by your statea and/or federal governments? Could you find out how much someone made at the NSA, for example? > Sweden . Tax returns are not the same as pay transparency. In premise, yes, in practice, no, because a tax return is based on taxable income only. So, let's say I have tax credits for having three kids. My taxable income would be vastly different from…

....who do you think pays NSA employees? https://work.chron.com/nsa-pay-scale-16399.html

>Sweden.

You are conflating tax returns and taxable income. A tax return shows the salary AND the tax credits. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-panama-tax-nordics-idUSKC...

>Buffer

https://www.google.com/search?q=buffer+pay+transparency

Re: Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men

#522

Post by smileysteve »

roguecoder wrote: post #515
bargl wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are correct, my comment assumes more of a gender bias discussion from the OP then their words deserve. You are wrong in that my assertion about parenting and that the parent is the best fit to make that call. Their claim of "If I was a parent of this child..." Is exactly the kind of stuff I'd spout before I had children. And in your comment you completely disregard this point I'm making. So in a way, you aren't l…

ADD is interesting and a clear example of bias, in that it is over-diagnosed and over-medicated in boys and under-diagnosed and under-medicated in girls. Simply saying it is "over prescribed" can make things worse for the people who are already being most neglected.

Perhaps it's the bias of the article I linked to, but this is the first I've heard that girls are under diagnosed and under medicated for ADD.

It seems most of the doctors in the article would prefer no medication for ADD though.

Re: Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men

#523

Post by sizzle »

roguecoder wrote: post #512
mpweiher wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> sure suggest that something is wrong with computer science departments. Why? Why do men and women have to have the same preferences in what to study, in your opinion? Does the fact that 78% of students in veterinary science are female "sure suggest" that something is wrong with veterinary science? Since there are so many fields where women vastly outnumber men (and women significantly outnumber men overall in colle…

Which specific biological mechanism are you hypothesizing is responsible? In combination with which specific cultural construction of computer science that is somehow inalterable? Whereas we have pretty good evidence that by improving the signaling of ambient belonging for women we can significantly increase their interest in computer science: http://ilabs.uw.edu/sites/default/files/Cheryan_Meltzoff_Kim... Few things…

Look no further than the evolution of our species up to Homo sapiens. Women and men excelled in different 'occupations' related to providing sustenance (hunter-gatherer) and child rearing activities that were vital to the success of their people/tribes.

Is it that hard to believe that these deeply evolutionarily engrained practices have no effect on influencing how the different sexes value spending their time when we control for income gap disparity in choosing a profession w.r.t work life balance?

It takes a very specific type of person that enjoys staring intensely into a computer screen all day, lost in thought and confined in solitude while being unplugged from the human condition which can make you feel like a robot as the years progress.

Humans didn't evolve to sit in front of an artificial light source and forgo human interaction, regardless of gender or race.

Re: Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men

#524

Post by llama052 »

roguecoder wrote: post #516
llama052 wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there is anyway to know if that's because you're female or not. It could be personality, politics, among many different factors. I think it's unfair to assume that people don't remember your name because you're a female. I've worked with people for almost a year without remembering their name, because I'm awful with names. They were also very quiet and introverted, rarely said much and I suspect that ha…

Hey, so I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but this comment sounds like gaslighting: a woman told you about her experience, and you immediately disbelieved her and told her she is not only incorrect about her experience but that it must be her fault for being "quiet and introverted"? I recommend starting out by assuming she has knowledge and experiences you don't have access to and learning from it, rather than tr…

I'm not trying to gaslight or explain anything away. I'm saying there is a multitude of factors as to why you'd be at work and someone wouldn't remember your name.

I'm not blaming anyone, just trying to share another perspective. I personally think it's dangerous to think in black and white. I try to remain a healthy skeptic, and I'm welcome to new perspectives.

Re: Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men

#525

Post by rtkwe »

simoncoulton wrote: post #504
rtkwe wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 'people just choosing different careers' throws a lot of inequality under a rug and calls the problem solved. 1) If we tell women their whole childhood that some jobs are for men and some are for women and vice versa for men then ask them when they turn 18 what job they want we'll get horrendously unequal outcomes even though people are completely free to choose. 2) Valuation of jobs is based partially on the vie…

1) Except that in the western world we do not tell people their whole childhood that they are to do X because of their gender. We actively tell people they can be whatever they want, and as far back I can remember in primary school (early 80s) that's been the case. 2) Valuation doesn't always equate to monetary remuneration. For example (at least in Australia), police, teachers etc get FAR more leave and holidays com…

Not explicitly can't but there's a lot of 'boys work' and 'girls work' gendering around work and skills. Progress has been made sure but there'll be a lag of decades before changes at the childhood education level work their way through to employment stats.

Re: Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men

#526

Post by sleepysysadmin »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #360
sleepysysadmin wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have exchanged sources. Thank you. Your assertion is that Japan and Korea are highly discriminatory against women? That's certainly interesting and I'm not sure I can defend against that position. Perhaps women in japan and korea are extremely oppressed. This is certainly not what I thought after reading for example or just seeing what's portrayed in the media. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_South_Korea Me…

Japan is very well known for gender inequality in the workplace and Rwanda is also well known as an example of significant legal and social support for gender equality. If your intuition and awareness doesn't include either of these facts then you should not trust yourself on this area at all.

I'm not going to defend Japan. As I said I'm happy to believe they treat women worse than Saudi Arabia; which is what my source provided.

As for Rwanda, this is just plain absurd. This is at best a checkbox study where they are looking to confirm reverse sexism. Yes I did read Rwanda has significant reverse sexism. After the genocide their society was over 70% women and they elected leaders to provide sexist policies.

Reverse sexism is not an ideal to be aiming toward.

Re: Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men

#527

Post by Aeol »

jurassic wrote: post #371
rhegart wrote: post #154

High school, college, any STEM fields are all overwhelmingly biased in terms of favoring women. 57% of college graduates are women. Men are not only getting the short end of the stick but are being told by every voice that they are privileged, it’s their fault, they are bad whereas women have sooooo many extra programs and positive reinforcement to succeed. No one with a straight face can tell me women in entry level…

> areas with primarily male coworkers, and creepy bosses This describes basically every tech job I have ever had. Real life engineering woman here reporting in. In 2014 I joined a series B startup as engineer #15 and was the only woman in the office other than the admin; food delivery dudes often brought things to my desk, assuming I must be the office mother. When I was late to work one day after being groped by a s…

You should check out "women who code"

Re: Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men

#528

Post by sleepysysadmin »

joshuamorton wrote: post #398
sleepysysadmin wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have exchanged sources. Thank you. Your assertion is that Japan and Korea are highly discriminatory against women? That's certainly interesting and I'm not sure I can defend against that position. Perhaps women in japan and korea are extremely oppressed. This is certainly not what I thought after reading for example or just seeing what's portrayed in the media. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_South_Korea Me…

De jure and de facto equality are different things. Do you honestly believe that African Americans faced no discrimination after July, 3 1964? Because at that point they lived in a democratic society with no barriers. They could run for political office. Under your definition, that's a 1.0. I guess you could say they just didn't choose to run for office. Or to get educated. The cross burning was coincidental.

So lets say I have a new country. The laws are 100% equal and there's absolutely no discrimination against women.

But an election occurs and there's not a perfect representation of the people. Only 25% of the elected MPs are women. But there's no actual discrimination happening.

What's the fix? THERE IS NO FIX. It's exactly how it should be. We absolutely should not say 50% of MPs must be women. That is not how democracy works.

>Because at that point they lived in a democratic society with no barriers. They could run for political office. Under your definition, that's a 1.0.

Yes that is a 1.0. Was there discrimination? I'm sure there is still today. However there is no fix. That is a 1.0. We are equal.

We dont need to have a rule saying 50% of the elected positions must be black people. That would be discrimination and wrong.

Re: Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men

#529

Post by sleepysysadmin »

rhcom2 wrote: post #391
sleepysysadmin wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have exchanged sources. Thank you. Your assertion is that Japan and Korea are highly discriminatory against women? That's certainly interesting and I'm not sure I can defend against that position. Perhaps women in japan and korea are extremely oppressed. This is certainly not what I thought after reading for example or just seeing what's portrayed in the media. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_South_Korea Me…

You just ignored the study's definitions for all the terms and then claimed them false by supplying your own which is pretty classic confirmation bias. Just for "political empowerment" for example, the study did not define political empowerment as "can run for politics."

Lets say Canada passes legislation saying >50% of MPs must be women.

That would be an extreme abuse of democracy. If only 50% of ridings have a woman running. It would mean those riding automatically go to those women. Those ridings don't get to vote.

So yes, political empowerment only goes so in far as women having the right to run. Not confirmation bias; I simply believe in democracy.

I also note you never commented on the other points which were much more egregious and clearly make things appear much worse than it actually is.

I also go back and recalculate Canada's score. We are the MOST equal country surpassing Iceland and Rwanda by gigantic strides it also makes the study look pretty stupid because our equality is perfect and yet we have a large wage gap still.

This is because the gender wage gap isn't discrimination. It's entirely based on decisions made by women.

Re: Google Moves to Address Wage Equity, and Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men

#530

Post by joshuamorton »

sleepysysadmin wrote: post #528
joshuamorton wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

De jure and de facto equality are different things. Do you honestly believe that African Americans faced no discrimination after July, 3 1964? Because at that point they lived in a democratic society with no barriers. They could run for political office. Under your definition, that's a 1.0. I guess you could say they just didn't choose to run for office. Or to get educated. The cross burning was coincidental.

So lets say I have a new country. The laws are 100% equal and there's absolutely no discrimination against women. But an election occurs and there's not a perfect representation of the people. Only 25% of the elected MPs are women. But there's no actual discrimination happening. What's the fix? THERE IS NO FIX. It's exactly how it should be. We absolutely should not say 50% of MPs must be women. That is not how democ…

>So lets say I have a new country. The laws are 100% equal and there's absolutely no discrimination against women. But an election occurs and there's not a perfect representation of the people. Only 25% of the elected MPs are women. But there's no actual discrimination happening.

Its very easy to think up improbable, and even impossible, hypothetical situations. This is one such hypothetical and it adds no value to this discussion. We live in a world with discrimination. What you're suggesting is as fantastical as imagining a country where everyone can fly and then asking what we would do for the car companies. It assumes so many unrealistic things that its not a good faith attempt at conversation.

Or another way of putting this is: I claim that your situation will occur with only some miniscule probability such that it is indistinguishable from impossible in practice. You're welcome to prove me wrong. But to be clear, I ask for a proof, and the burden is on you, to show that in a society truly free of discrimination, both de jure and de facto, that things would be as you claim with any regularity. Put plainly, such a feat isn't possible. So your hypothetical isn't worth spending time pondering.

>Was there discrimination? I'm sure there is still today.

Then it's not a 1.0. The WEF report is measuring discrimination, which you just said still exists. By your own admission, this shouldn't be a 1.0.

Post reply on HN